KRISHNA AJWANI Vs. AJIT DHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RE : Civil Misc. Application No. 388133 of 2011 for permission to file the Special Appeal. This is an application praying for leave by the applicant to file this Special Appeal. The applicant's case is that she has already filed an impleadment applicationi in the writ petition. The leave is granted to the appellant to file this Special Appeal. Special Appeal: Sri Nikhil Agrawal has put in appearance on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2. Sri R. B. Singhal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Anurag Misra has put in appearance on behalf of respondents no. 3,4 and 5.

(2.) THIS special appeal has been filed against the following judgment and order of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 9.12.2011:

(3.) IT is submitted that the application which was referred as application under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. contained a prayer to the effect that the order dated 27.8.2010, passed by the learned District Judge be enforced. It is submitted by Mr. Jain that the order dated 27.8.2011 passed by learned District Judge in original suit no. 386 of 2008 did not contain any injunction order or any direction, violation of which can be complained of by means of application under Order 39 Rule 2A. He submits that the writ petition itself was misconceived and Hon'ble Single Judge could not have entertained the writ petition or made any observation with regard to acceptance of the amount of Rs. 83,08,760/-. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submits that the Special Appeal is not maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that Special Appeal is maintainable. In the writ petition no order passed by Civil Court was under challenge. Prima-facie appeal appears to be maintainable,however on the question of maintainability of appeal, the parties may make their submissions on the next date. Sri R.B. Singhal, learned counsel for the Union of India submits that there is a dispute of entitlement between appellant and the respondents no. 1 and 2.